3 minutes ago, Inu said:

This is the quote you all raged about:

"That's atmospheric simulation, not to be confused with flight dynamics. "

Instead you chose to apply the term "Physics" in a very counter-productive broad meaning; the sun shining, is physics as well. Light rendering, is physics based as well. So yes technically "atmospheric simulation" is indeed "Physics". And the water flushing in the toilet as well. Everything in this world in fact, is "Physics".

It is quite clear what the guy was talking about for anyone not trying to nitpick, from the first time I read it , he is talking about the flight model, i.e. the inputs needed to be applied while trying to land and takeoff, and been given an example of wind blowing down a hill, which is irrelevant. 

Still not understanding I see, let's try again... Firstly, I am actually agreeing that what Abrams brought up was about atmospheric simulation, and not about flight dynamics per se (though it's also quite true that atmospheric air flow simulation impacts flight dynamics).

Regardless, the original flow of the thread went like this, as can be plainly seen by all:

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/648408-msfs-2024-focused-dev-qa-stream/?do=findComment&comment=5153205
https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/648408-msfs-2024-focused-dev-qa-stream/?do=findComment&comment=5153214
https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/648408-msfs-2024-focused-dev-qa-stream/?do=findComment&comment=5153271

My basic reading comprehension skills make it clear that it's "physics" being discussed... person A claimed physics have been continually improved over the years, person B asked for examples, person C gave one. 
 

I want to go on record as saying everyone here is wrong. And I have proof:

"Pilotwings 64 provides the most comprehensive and, dare I say, revolutionary flight dynamics of any simulator I've ever used." - Me

"I'm stunned that more commercial aviation companies aren't training their pilots on Pilotwings 64. It's a marvel of software engineering at an unbeatable price." - My (understandably confused) brother, after I told him to read this aloud

"What on earth are you going on about? Why do you keep talking about Pilotwings 64?" - my wife

 

7 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Here we go again. You cannot accept facts so you're trying to steer it into a different discussion...applying your logic let me state that if Mc Donalds wasn't selling such a delicious and healthy food they wouldn't be the most visited restaurants in the world. Do you agree with that? 😅🤦‍♂️

Oh the irony #2 .. What facts am I not accepting? that MSFS is subpar at flight dynamics? that it's as bad as some of you make it seem? Yup absolutely I'm not accepting that since I've used all the sims before MSFS and now with MSFS and the current crop of well developed aircraft those are all bogus claims. Many IRL pilots and reviews also agree per the sampling of comments I posted, something which you can't seem to accept 🙂. You are confusing "facts" with wishful thinking I'm afraid. And yes I get it, you want to frame the market uptake/success of MSFS as that being equivalent to McDonald's mass market success.. obviously that makes you feel better, so have at it 🙂 

But the actual facts are that Navigraph represents serious simmers, and the two most telling questions on that survey were about their most important aspect in a flight sim to which the answer was flight realism. The other question of course was about the sim they used mostly or exclusively and that was MSFS by a wide margin. So one has to wonder, if MSFS was so bad with flight dynamics (as the usual suspects desperately keep claiming), why would the survey respondents answer this way? Why would MSFS have this much market uptake among serious simmers?
 

not necessarily the best place to put this i guess, but i'm reeeeally hoping the default airports are a lot better this time around. i get that nothing can compare to a handcrafted scenery, even if it's just creatively using a standard library of objects a la the X-Plane Scenery Gateway, but with the advancements in 'AI' algorithms and stuff i would think a procedurally generated airport can be a LOT better now than what Asobo cooked up for MSFS2020. it's really a bummer that you MUST buy payware scenery for every airport you fly into/out of (or luck out with the freeware work of a kind soul) or it just looks terrible and will most likely have issues with parking, taxiway layout, etc

please Asobo, please... i hate shopping for payware sceneries

32 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Firstly, I am actually agreeing that what Abrams brought up was about atmospheric simulation, and not about flight dynamics per se (though it's also quite true that atmospheric air flow simulation impacts flight dynamics).
 

So we are in agreement.

"though it's also quite true that atmospheric air flow simulation impacts flight dynamics"

Sure, the current airflow on your fuselage, not the one 20KM away.

Large environmental wind simulation is not about how you currently fly the plane, it's about preparing, planning and risk management.

44 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

My basic reading comprehension skills make it clear that it's "physics" being discussed... person A claimed physics have been continually improved over the years, person B asked for examples, person C gave one. 
 

Which was then clarified as suggested in the post I quoted, yet they stick to it and yet again divert to mockery such as "hey you are arguing semantics LOL".

Generally, if you want developers to improve something, you better be quite precise in what you ask for.

As per the logic they all showed, PBR rendering is "Physics as well", it's literally called *Physically* based rendering, so you can argue MSFS physics are improved.

See how illogical this sounds?

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Inu

9 hours ago, Inu said:

He has a point though, wind simulation in the atmosphere does not equal flight dynamics simulation, both are completely different things. Trying to twist his words in a not so successful nitpicking manner is an extremely childish behavior around here.

You can argue that good atmospheric simulation is an important aspect of flight simulation in general, surely no one will deny that.

But it is not flight dynamics, which is when wind actually hits the metal and flows around your fuselage, determining how it immediately affects aerodynamics and your inputs as a pilot; I fail to see why wind 20KM away has anything to do with that.

 

He doesn't. Flight Dynamics depend on CFD. Aircrafts are moving on a fluid, hence why an accurate CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) is very important for the flight dynamics as a whole. Unless of course you like to fly on rails and be happy with the performance numbers alone (look, my plane is flying by the books, it doesn't reallistic, but who cares).

Quote

Flight dynamics in aviation and spacecraft, is the study of the performance, stability, and control of vehicles flying through the air or in outer space.

In our case = Through the air = CFD.

4 hours ago, Krakin said:

I do hope like others that we get something to chew on before the 25th. When Jorg said September I didn't have just one event in mind and I hope he didn't either.

I hope so too, but not too hopeful. LOL

12 minutes ago, Dermot McClusky said:

I want to go on record as saying everyone here is wrong. And I have proof :

Yup! Unarguable 🫡

Also, let’s not forget that real pilots prefer KFC to McDonalds. 🤙

4 minutes ago, Inu said:

So we are in agreement.

"though it's also quite true that atmospheric air flow simulation impacts flight dynamics"

Sure, the current airflow on your fuselage.

Large environmental wind simulation is not about how you currently fly the plane, it's about preparing, planning and risk management.

Which was then clarified as suggested in the post I quoted, yet they stick to it and yet again divert to mockery such as "hey you are arguing semantics LOL".

In agreement about the topic that Abrams posted was about atmospheric airflow simulation 🙂 .. and yes, indeed the *current* airflow on your fuselage is most impactful to flight dynamics, and that *current* airflow could be a result of combinations and interactions of various airflows from a much wider area, which MSFS simulates within the 20km cocoon around the aircraft using CFD. The large environment airflow simulation is also simulating thermals etc so the 20km cocoon is not a waste of consideration since directly or indirectly, to larger or lesser degrees, the aircraft flight dynamics are impacted.

In any case, my main point here was that the initial response to Abrams' posts here https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/648408-msfs-2024-focused-dev-qa-stream/?do=findComment&comment=5153334 (not by you) was what started this side debate, and that initial response made no sense given the topic was about physics in general.
 

Just now, lwt1971 said:

Oh the irony #2 .. What facts am I not accepting? that MSFS is subpar at flight dynamics? that it's as bad as some of you make it seem? Yup absolutely I'm not accepting that since I've used all the sims before MSFS and now with MSFS and the current crop of well developed aircraft those are all bogus claims. Many IRL pilots and reviews also agree per the sampling of comments I posted, something which you can't seem to accept 🙂. You are confusing "facts" with wishful thinking I'm afraid. And yes I get it, you want to frame the market uptake/success of MSFS as that being equivalent to McDonald's mass market success.. obviously that makes you feel better, so have at it 🙂 

But the actual facts are that Navigraph represents serious simmers, and the two most telling questions on that survey were about their most important aspect in a flight sim to which the answer was flight realism. The other question of course was about the sim they used mostly or exclusively and that was MSFS by a wide margin. So one has to wonder, if MSFS was so bad with flight dynamics (as the usual suspects desperately keep claiming), why would the survey respondents answer this way? Why would MSFS have this much market uptake among serious simmers?
 

Indeed, the facts are that it is not on par. Even those profi-pilots who are using almost exclusively MSFS agreed on that point. For the general sim-user it is good enough, absolutely. And as BB711 explained in the video mentionned above, many having never flown irl won’t notice that difference. That doesn’t mean that it is on par on that very topic, it simply means that the majority finds it ok enough. A « serious simmer » doesn’t mean that he would necessarely notice that aspect, even less when being on MS-platforms since exclusively. It simply means that they are dedicated to flightsimming, use it often and invest quite some time and money in it.

14 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

He doesn't. Flight Dynamics depend on CFD. Aircrafts are moving on a fluid, hence why an accurate CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) is very important for the flight dynamics as a whole. 

 

Sure if he showed an example of CFD around a fuselage hitting real life values, but the example given was wind blowing down a hill, which is an environmental factor and not a flight model factor.

Both 2 are different categories of development and fields of profession, entirely, despite they fall under the same "semantics", in this case "CFD".

Never have I ever in reality had to compensate for wind factors 20KM away, in fact I land and takeoff around an airport in reality with a mountain ridge next to it, it's always the same exact place the turbulence occurs in.

The only thing it matters for, is expectations and risk management. If it's dangerous wind and turbulence, you don't go there in the first place. Same as approaching a cloud and expecting some thermals and turbulence.

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Inu

15 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Yup! Unarguable 🫡

Also, let’s not forget that real pilots prefer KFC to McDonalds. 🤙

Exactly! Because KFC has wings!

17 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Indeed, the facts are that it is not on par. Even those profi-pilots who are using almost exclusively MSFS agreed on that point. For the general sim-user it is good enough, absolutely. And as BB711 explained in the video mentionned above, many having never flown irl won’t notice that difference. That doesn’t mean that it is on par on that very topic, it simply means that the majority finds it ok enough. A « serious simmer » doesn’t mean that he would necessarely notice that aspect, even less when being on MS-platforms since exclusively. It simply means that they are dedicated to flightsimming, use it often and invest quite some time and money in it.

You seem rather eager to keep bringing XP into the conversation, and how the flight dynamics are not on par, that XP is superior, bla bla.. if you feel XP is superior and that the flight dynamics are not on par, that's great. Many of us feel that with properly implemented aircraft and their respective flight models that MSFS is also great for flight dynamics, as do many reputable 3rd party devs and IRL pilots. Such are opinions. Coming on here to repeatedly keep bashing MSFS flight dynamics makes you (and a certain other cohort) look rather insecure 🙂, but if that makes you somehow weirdly cope with MSFS's success then more power to you!
 

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by lwt1971

8 minutes ago, Inu said:

Never have I ever in reality had to compensate for wind factors 20KM away, in fact I land and takeoff around an airport in reality with a mountain ridge next to it, it's always the same exact place the turbulence occurs in.

Yes of course and why would you, but that airflow and thermals directly around you are obviously impacted by the topography and other factors well beyond the aircraft isn't it, and the ultimate airflow that the aircraft actually experiences is influenced by factors in a wider area. Also, to actually simulate atmospheric airflow directly around the aircraft the sim obviously has to consider a wider area, as it just wouldn't make sense to calculate & simulate atmospheric airflow and thermals by only considering a few feet around the aircraft. 

As the pilot you obviously only care about the airflow directly around the aircraft.. and on the other hand the simulator in order to simulate that airflow obviously has to consider a much wider cocoon and volume of space, and 20km is hardly overkill.
 

26 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

In agreement about the topic that Abrams posted was about atmospheric airflow simulation 🙂 .. and yes, indeed the *current* airflow on your fuselage is most impactful to flight dynamics, and that *current* airflow could be a result of combinations and interactions of various airflows from a much wider area, which MSFS simulates within the 20km cocoon around the aircraft using CFD. The large environment airflow simulation is also simulating thermals etc so the 20km cocoon is not a waste of consideration since directly or indirectly, to larger or lesser degrees, the aircraft flight dynamics are impacted.
 

Its rather simple to understand imo

Atmospheric simulation= The reason you get whatever wind component you end up flying through to begin with.

Flight model=the resulting impact of this wind component and it's effect on the plane and pilot inputs.

Both are as mentioned, completely different fields of expertise to begin with. Even if both use the same CFD tech.

 

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Inu